IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
OL Of M/s Arya Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (IN LIQN) - Appellant
Vs.
NA - Respondent
Official Liqudator Report No. 80 of 2022 In Company Application No. 42 of 2004
Decided On : 02-12-2022
Companies Act, 1956 – Section 481, 468, 536 – Income-Tax Department – Prayed for Dissolution – Learned advocate for applicant report under Official Liquidator has prayed for dissolution of company – Held, Learned advocate for Official Liquidator and on perusal of record of this report and in facts of this case and considering ratio laid down by Apex Court in case of Meghal Homes report deserves to be accepted – Official liquidator is also permitted to make payment towards professional Chartered Accountants towards preparation of Auditor Certificate from Common Pool Account maintained by Office Official Liquidator – Report is allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the applicant.
2. By this report under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (For short “the Act”) the Official Liquidator has prayed for dissolution of the company, namely, M/s. Arya Silk Mills Pvt Ltd. (In Liquidation).
3. It is stated in the report that M/s. Arya Silk Mills Pvt Ltd., which was earlier in Members’ voluntary winding up, has been subsequently ordered to be compulsorily wound up by an order dated 07.05.2004 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 42 of 2004 and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court has been appointed as the Liquidator of the aforesaid company (In Liquidation) and also appointed Shri Ravindra N. Vepari, Chartered Accountants, based at Surat, to assist the Official Liquidator in examining and verifying the Books of Accounts and other records of the company and to submit a report thereon.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 07.05.2004 passed by this Court, the Official liquidator vide his letter dated 24.05.2004 called upon the Ex-directors of the company including Voluntary Liquidator to: -
(b) File a Statement of Affairs of the company under section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956; and
(c) Appear before the Official liquidator on 10.06.2004 for recording of their statement under Rule 130 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
5. It is further stated in the report that the Official Liquidator deputed his authorized officials at Surat on 28.05.2004 to take over possession of the assets and properties and Book of Accounts and other records of the company. On reaching at Surat, the officials of the Official Liquidator contacted Shri Ravindra V. Vepari and requested him to either come personally or send his authorized representative to join the Officials of the Office of the Official Liquidator at the time and place mentioned in Official Liquidator’s letter dated 24.05.2004. Shri Revindra N. Vepari, deputed his partner Shri Urvesh Jhaveri, who joined the representative of the Official Liquidator on 28.05.2004 at 10:00 A.M. at 228, Trade Centre, Ring Road, Surat, the registered Office of the Company. However, neither any ex-director of the company nor the voluntary Liquidator remained present at the said place despite a specific advance notice to them in this regard.
6. It is further stated in the report that on reaching at the registered office of the company at 228, Trade Centre, Ring Road, Surat, it was found that the premises is already locked, and nobody came to open it for quite some time. The representative of the Official Liquidator also observed that a notice of Company Petition No. 50 of 2004 was already affixed on the main door of the unit No. 228. On making enquiries from nearby shops/ offices, the representatives of the Official Liquidator were informed that the unit No. 228 is occupied by Shri Shailendra K. Agrawal, but he is not coming to open it for quite some time. Since no Director of the company was present, the unit no. 228 could not be opened and therefore it is not known as to what is lying inside that office. However, the representatives of the Official Liquidator applied two new locks on the shutter of the office and sealed all the four locks and took over constructive possession of the said premises on 28.05.2004.
7. It is further stated in the report that on receipt of the Official Liquidator’s notice dated 24.05.2004, the Voluntary Liquidator and other ex-directors of the company, jointly vide their letter dated 27.05.2004, have informed the Official Liquidator that the premises at 228, Trade Centre, Ring Road, Surat is owned by late Shri Surendra Kumar Agrawal, the brother of Shri Shailendra K. Agrawal and on his demise, the premises is owned by his legal representative being his wife and son. The said letter dated 27.05.2004 also states that the said premises was never and is
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the dissolution of a company when it is just and reasonable in the circumstances o....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the dissolution of a company in liquidation.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the dissolution of a company in liquidation.
The lack of funds and assets to proceed with the winding up proceedings justifies the dissolution of a company under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956.
The Tribunal approved the dissolution of the corporate debtor after confirming the completion of the liquidation process and the Liquidator's compliance with statutory obligations.
The Court's decision emphasized the importance of following legal procedures in the winding up of a company and the consequences of non-compliance by the Ex-Directors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.